Google

Todays great announcement from Google which will affect virtually everyone that uses Google Apps in any enterprise situation is their decision to go full retard.

Today they've decided to merge all of their communication platforms (Talk, Google+ Hangouts) all into one. Unfortunately they chose Google+ Hangouts as the one to merge everything into which causes some stupid problems, especially for larger organizations that really don't want their users having Plus accounts.

The other part of this announcement that has made things much more difficult is that they're dropping XMPP support as well. So it's not like you can just suck it up, create a G+ profile but continue to use Trillian/Pidgin/other XMPP compatible clients... you are forced to use either their iOS/Android application or Chrome extension.

Yes, you must use a extension to their browser, there are no native applications for desktop OS's.

Sad, but hardly surprising. After Reader, looks like the next service that falls prey to the G+ First Doctrine. I wouln't mind much if they hadn't closed down XMPP. That they do though, shows, that in their new course, driving people to G+ actually seems to have higher priority than actually keeping their products usable.

Out of curiosity, did they bother to provide a pseudo-“explanation“ like Twitter did when they locked down their API? Something along the lines of “we believe that using XMPP or other non-G+ software may cause serious confusion in the precious little minds of our user base and may lead to an unapproved user experience. Therecore, we're commited ourselvelves to minimize user exposal to those high-risk services.“

The thing is that they've had services that work for most people. Even larger organizations paying them for their services. But at this point, they are actively turning their backs on people who pay them money in the interest of "Maybe people will use Google+ so we can harvest more personal data".

They're like a prostitute who is turning down money so they can give freebies away.

Sad, but hardly surprising. After Reader, looks like the next service that falls pray to the G+ First Doctrine. I wouln't mind much if they hadn't closed down XMPP. That they do though, shows, that in their new course, driving people to G+ actually seems to have higher priority than actually keeping their products usable.

Out of curiosity, did they bother to provide a pseudo-“explanation“ like Twitter did when they locked down their API? Something along the lines of “we believe that using XMPP or other non-G+ software may cause serious confusion in the precious little minds of our user base and may lead to an unapproved user experience. Therecore, we're commited ourselvelves to minimize user exposal to those high-risk services.“

I've said the same. Hide the XMPP support. Don't give me any UI for it other than a checkbox in my administrator panel. Organizations definitely do use it (my entire office is online right now), so it's just downright foolish to fucking get rid of it.

I don't know why they prioritize a social network over people actually paying them money. I pay $100 a year for 2 email addresses. Small businesses are basically $500 a pop (10 users). Multiply that by a lot (We sell anyone that wants email onto Google Apps.. that will likely change).

If they did this “just“ for the data, that would at least be understandeable. But the thing is, even then their actions don't make the tiniest bit of sense: They' re already getting more data than Facebook probably ever will. They already have permission to cross-link search data, ad traces, analytics data, GPlay purchases, Gmail address books and contents of mails and address book and GPS data from probably any android device in use. Hell, they don't even need a Like button - they'll get pings free of charge from every website which has any kind of ad, analytics script or CDN-hosted library from them embedded. Which pretty much is every website. They're probably knowing more about my past, my browsing habits, my secret desires and dirty secrets and what I did an hour ago than Facebook - without me ever writing a word on G+

My growing suspicion is that this doesn't actually have many rational reasons but is mostly for PR. After three failed attempts at social networking, they're getting desperate. They don't want to be known as the guys who got beaten by facebook, so they're trying more and more ridiculous ways to bring people to G+, even if that doesn't win them anything.

I'm actually looking forward to see where this will go in a morbid couriosity kind of way...

The issue with their strategy is that I have no desire to use Google+. I already use Facebook. All they're doing is pissing me off to the point of me wanting to migrate my services to a competitor and start suggesting other alternatives to people who ask my advice on email (which considering that's a portion of my job, and in the last 3 years I've probably brought Google a few grand in revenue).

I don't understand why they are being such try hards for a shitty social network. Facebook is doing it better, why not focus on doing something that they might actually succeed at.

But at this point, they are actively turning their backs on people who pay them money in the interest of "Maybe people will use Google+ so we can harvest more personal data".

Because they have convinced themselves that they can make even more money by harvesting personal data. At this point Search and Gmail are the only Google products that I would be willing to bet have any long term future and I would avoid everything else.

The problem is, Google has too many people and too much money. Too many people means they have to keep coming up with new projects to give them something to do. Too much money means they don't have to be careful. They don't have to evaluate every idea to be sure it actually makes sense, or at least has some potential. The ad money is rolling in by the boatload and if they waste a few hundred million dollars starting up and then shutting down a hundred different products, it's just a tiny blip on their financial reports.

The problem is, Google has too many people and too much money. Too many people means they have to keep coming up with new projects to give them something to do. Too much money means they don't have to be careful. They don't have to evaluate every idea to be sure it actually makes sense, or at least has some potential. The ad money is rolling in by the boatload and if they waste a few hundred million dollars starting up and then shutting down a hundred different products, it's just a tiny blip on their financial reports.

Yeah, but one day they're going to wake up and be irrelevant and there will be much bawling and cries of "How did this happen? Where did all the money go??"

The problem is, Google has too many people and too much money. Too many people means they have to keep coming up with new projects to give them something to do. Too much money means they don't have to be careful. They don't have to evaluate every idea to be sure it actually makes sense, or at least has some potential. The ad money is rolling in by the boatload and if they waste a few hundred million dollars starting up and then shutting down a hundred different products, it's just a tiny blip on their financial reports.

Yeah, but one day they're going to wake up and be irrelevant and there will be much bawling and cries of "How did this happen? Where did all the money go??"

And then they'll look down and see that their bed is made of $10000000000000000 bills.

…especially for larger organizations that really don't want their users having Plus accounts.

The other part of this announcement that has made things much more difficult is that they're dropping XMPP support as well.

Organizations are welcome to install their own XMPP server or switch to any other XMPP provider (there is still a lot of them) or to SIP/SIMPLE which they can also install themselves or have plethora of providers to choose from or to Skype.

Yeah, but one day they're going to wake up and be irrelevant and there will be much bawling and cries of "How did this happen? Where did all the money go??"

In germany, they currently have around 95% market share as a search engine. There are studies showing that students are significantly less likely to find a paper if it's not indexed by google. I don't have figures for the ad market, but it's likely similar there. I don't see how they'll become irrelevant any time soon. You don't quit crack just because your dealer is an asshole either, after all.

There are studies showing that students are significantly less likely to find a paper if it's not indexed by google.

Firstly, there are studies showing anything you like. Secondly, the students are not trying very hard, are they? I know that students are lazy, and in some places they don't put high demands on the students, but if a student has to find a paper, he/she won't stop just because google hasn't indexed it. And thirdly, who cares about students finding papers? No one.

You don't quit crack just because your dealer is an asshole either, after all.

I'm a bit surprised to find that view widespread here. I'd have expected you lot to get what Google's doing. It's a bit confusing that they're currently making lots of money from purely ancillary lines like selling ad-space, but what they're actually doing is collecting enough data so that at some point they can target ads really well. That will be immensely valuable.

Google's main rival in the data collection field is Facebook. At some point, Google will have to either buy Facebook, or partner-up, or defeat it with an alternative social network. Given the immense costs of buying Facebook (at the moment) it makes complete sense for Google to throw a few tens of millions here or there at a FB rival that has a slim chance of flying.

Well, except for the fact that Microsoft's profits are going up, not down.

Yes, apart from that. MS's profits particularly seem to derive from Office and the associated services (Exchange, Sharepoint, etc.) which are both relatively competent and near ubiquitous. However, they've been having a lot of problems recently with the OS side; it might be profitable, but it's in real danger of becoming irrelevant and that would be very dangerous for them (since third-party developers — a critical part of the ecosystem — will then leak away and that in turn leaves the other parts dangerously isolated).

My point wasn't that they are currently irrelevant, but rather that the next generation of systems doesn't appear to need MS at all and their efforts to get a piece of the action haven't done well. I'm reminded of Wile E Coyote running through thick dust, but I don't know whether there's rock or a canyon beneath…

I'm a bit surprised to find that view widespread here. I'd have expected you lot to get what Google's doing. It's a bit confusing that they're currently making lots of money from purely ancillary lines like selling ad-space, but what they're actually doing is collecting enough data so that at some point they can target ads really well. That will be immensely valuable.

Google's main rival in the data collection field is Facebook. At some point, Google will have to either buy Facebook, or partner-up, or defeat it with an alternative social network. Given the immense costs of buying Facebook (at the moment) it makes complete sense for Google to throw a few tens of millions here or there at a FB rival that has a slim chance of flying.

Right, except the only danger Facebook poses to them is to expose how insanely worthless these huge ad targeting collections are (at least in the context of ads, not in the context of data mining or extortion rackets). Google currently has a monopole on ad-target data, ad distribution, ad revenue and so on. This enables them to hold up the illusion that all that personal data has no inflation - if you don't know how much data they have about you the widespread availability of more data won't drive then the value of the previous data. Facebook going stock market was the worst thing that could happen to them: All of a sudden there is now a concrete currency for signed-up users, profile accuracy, mobile ad-serving, which is data Google never had to make public because they were drowning all their stockholders in money. That data is now put in relation to serving costs and content payouts (data that was available before), and all of a sudden ad prices will sink from their inflated starting point.

Also, despite how god-awful g+ is as a replacement for their existing services, I can't exactly blame them for trying to integrate all of their 50+-services into bigger entities, both from a convenience and maintenance point of view...

Yeah, but one day they're going to wake up and be irrelevant and there will be much bawling and cries of "How did this happen? Where did all the money go??"

You mean like Microsoft are getting very close to doing?

Yeah, I don't see that happening. Microsoft has a huge install base and is central to the business of industries which generates trillions in revenue a year. I wouldn't say Microsoft is always the most competently-run company, but they're doing okay.

Google? Their money comes from ads and their inflated market cap. If we have a major financial shock, it could easily devastate their bottom line. Besides, the search engine and free email space is pretty unpredictable. Google's held the top spot in search for awhile, but last time I checked Yahoo still had more email users (probably because they don't do anything to stop spammers from signing up.) And it's not like Yahoo's finances have been looking rosy lately. I think it's quite possible that in 10 years Google will be a has-been, like Yahoo is now.

I'd have expected you lot to get what Google's doing. It's a bit confusing that they're currently making lots of money from purely ancillary lines like selling ad-space, but what they're actually doing is collecting enough data so that at some point they can target ads really well. That will be immensely valuable.

Yeah, obviously that's the goal, but how's that working out for them? How is gutting talk going to help G+?

Google's main rival in the data collection field is Facebook. At some point, Google will have to either buy Facebook, or partner-up, or defeat it with an alternative social network. Given the immense costs of buying Facebook (at the moment) it makes complete sense for Google to throw a few tens of millions here or there at a FB rival that has a slim chance of flying.

Facebook has been so inept at monetizing the immense amount of data they have that if Google just sits back and waits a few years, Facebook will probably come crawling to them. That's assuming FB is even around any more. It's just a fucking place for grannies to play Farmville and shit anymore.

However, they've been having a lot of problems recently with the OS side; it might be profitable, but it's in real danger of becoming irrelevant and that would be very dangerous for them (since third-party developers — a critical part of the ecosystem — will then leak away and that in turn leaves the other parts dangerously isolated).

Besides, Windows runs Office and IIS and SQL Server and that's enough to keep them in business for quite some time. You think the billions of dollars in software developed for Microsoft platforms is just going to vanish? Shit, IBM is still raking in money because people who developed software for their mainframes in the 70s never ported that shit over.

Yeah, I don't see that happening. Microsoft has a huge install base and is central to the business of industries which generates trillions in revenue a year. I wouldn't say Microsoft is always the most competently-run company, but they're doing okay.

When people tell me that Apple's stock price isn't inflated compared to Microsoft, I used to respond:

"If every Apple product on Earth disappeared tomorrow, people would be annoyed but life would go on. If every Microsoft product disappeared tomorrow, we'd have no businesses, no power, no water, no transportation, and we'd be sharpening sticks as weapons."

By that standard, Linux is also way more important than OS X. It just doesn't happen to have a stock price to compare with.

"If every Apple product on Earth disappeared tomorrow, people would be annoyed but life would go on. If every Microsoft product disappeared tomorrow, we'd have no businesses, no power, no water, no transportation, and we'd be sharpening sticks as weapons."

"If every Apple product on Earth disappeared tomorrow, people would be annoyed but life would go on. If every Microsoft product disappeared tomorrow, we'd have no businesses, no power, no water, no transportation, and we'd be sharpening sticks as weapons."

Exactly.

If every open source product on Earth ceased to exist, we'd be without root servers for our internet DNS, and we'd be sharpening sticks as weapons.

I'd have expected you lot to get what Google's doing. It's a bit confusing that they're currently making lots of money from purely ancillary lines like selling ad-space, but what they're actually doing is collecting enough data so that at some point they can target ads really well. That will be immensely valuable.

Yeah, obviously that's the goal, but how's that working out for them? How is gutting talk going to help G+?

I don't think they'll have enough data to get really good at it for another decade or two. In the meantime, most of the rest of what they do is trivial pissing around. G+ is basically worthless to them, so they don't really care if they fuck it up - they'll happily put it down as the stake on a roulette wheel, so to speak.

Facebook has been so inept at monetizing the immense amount of data they have that if Google just sits back and waits a few years, Facebook will probably come crawling to them. That's assuming FB is even around any more. It's just a fucking place for grannies to play Farmville and shit anymore.

I have no idea whether Facebook has achieved some kind of critical mass that'll keep it at the top forever or not - although they have the money to buy out any possible competitor at an early stage, so maybe - but I don't think it's fair to say they've been bad at monetising their data. They have to mine a fuck of a lot of data first. The point isn't just to profile people, but also to know what people with the profile want to buy.

To do the job really well, we're going to need a century or so of data - cradle to grave with life-expectancy increased a bit by the time we get there. (You and I probably won't be around to see it, so that's a very general 'we'.)

I have no idea whether Facebook has achieved some kind of critical mass that'll keep it at the top forever or not...

The question is, "Is Facebook something people will actually care enough about to use in 10 years, or is it just another stupid fucking fad?" I vote stupid fucking fad, especially since now the median age of their users is probably 47 and all they do is play Farmville.

To do the job really well, we're going to need a century or so of data - cradle to grave with life-expectancy increased a bit by the time we get there.

WTF? First off, companies like Google have monetized their data very well, and that's with only a few years. Also, for some reason you assume that we'd want to know lifetime data? Very few advertisers care about what I liked when I was 4. Admittedly, in the future they might get really, really good at finding patterns in data so that this would be useful, but I'd say targeted advertising is already pretty damn good and will get even more targeted within the next few years.

Yeah, but one day they're going to wake up and be irrelevant and there will be much bawling and cries of "How did this happen? Where did all the money go??"

You mean like Microsoft are getting very close to doing?

Yeah, I don't see that happening. Microsoft has a huge install base and is central to the business of industries which generates trillions in revenue a year. I wouldn't say Microsoft is always the most competently-run company, but they're doing okay.

For example, let's take a moment to bash Windows Phone. pause Ok, now that that's over, the next time you're in a big box store, see if you can look at one of the handheld scanners EVERYONE uses for inventory control. Guess what those are running on? Yup, Windows CE, which Windows Phone is built on top of. Go into a convenience store when a vendor like Budweiser, Coke, or whatever, and they're using 'em too. (Except for Frito-Lay, unless they've changed, because they did it before anyone else, and they had to use PCs because there weren't anything smaller, so they won't/didn't switch until they'd depreciated that investment.) Everyone else is basically using Pocket PCs.

Meanwhile, Windows Phone doesn't look too awesome, but I know for a fact Android is a piece of shit*. And iPhone isn't much better.

*Seriously, what fucking genius decided to build a mobile platform on Java? Was this some Pygmalion-esque bet among the idle upper-class? "By Jove, Colonel, I do believe we can use Java for the innards of a smartphone!" "I'll take that bet, Professor. Winston, be a good man and bring us some more brandy. And have the keffirs set up the croquet hoops, I do believe it will be a splendid day for it!"

I have no idea whether Facebook has achieved some kind of critical mass that'll keep it at the top forever or not...

The question is, "Is Facebook something people will actually care enough about to use in 10 years, or is it just another stupid fucking fad?" I vote stupid fucking fad, especially since now the median age of their users is probably 47 and all they do is play Farmville.

That's also a good question. Time will tell, but I suspect social-networking is a stupid buzzword, but the concept itself is real enough, and something new we've added to our world. I'd say it's probably here to stay, in which case it's quite likely FB is too.@morbiuswilters said:

...but I don't think it's fair to say they've been bad at monetising their data.

Yes, they have. They get far, far less revenue for the number of users they have than Google. And Facebook even has the advantage of having more useful, personal information.

We're not talking about revenue in general, but about revenue from monetising data. That's not where Google is making their money at the moment, to any significant extent. As I said, all Google's income streams at this stage are basically ancillary to the data collection, not resulting from it.

Then again, the same is true of Facebook as far as I know - they sell ad space far more than they sell ad-targeting information.@morbiuswilters said:

To do the job really well, we're going to need a century or so of data - cradle to grave with life-expectancy increased a bit by the time we get there.

WTF? First off, companies like Google have monetized their data very well, and that's with only a few years. Also, for some reason you assume that we'd want to know lifetime data? Very few advertisers care about what I liked when I was 4. Admittedly, in the future they might get really, really good at finding patterns in data so that this would be useful, but I'd say targeted advertising is already pretty damn good and will get even more targeted within the next few years.

You ain't seen nothing yet, in my opinion. Targeted advertising isn't even in its infancy, so far - close enough to conception that there's still a cigarette end smouldering in the ashtray. I also wouldn't say 'might' get really good at finding patterns, but 'will', in the longer term. The advertisers still won't care about what you did when you were four, because that'll be abstracted away, but I'd expect it to be a great help in really accurate profiling.

Meanwhile, Windows Phone doesn't look too awesome, but I know for a fact Android is a piece of shit*. And iPhone isn't much better.

*Seriously, what fucking genius decided to build a mobile platform on Java? Was this some Pygmalion-esque bet among the idle upper-class? "By Jove, Colonel, I do believe we can use Java for the innards of a smartphone!" "I'll take that bet, Professor. Winston, be a good man and bring us some more brandy. And have the keffirs set up the croquet hoops, I do believe it will be a splendid day for it!"

Have you actually used the Threading Model and Data Exchange over threads (handlers and so forth). Because I would like to point out how insanse it actually is, but words fail me. I don't even know where to start categorizing the failure.

Seriously, what fucking genius decided to build a mobile platform on Java? Was this some Pygmalion-esque bet among the idle upper-class? "By Jove, Colonel, I do believe we can use Java for the innards of a smartphone!" "I'll take that bet, Professor. Winston, be a good man and bring us some more brandy. And have the keffirs set up the croquet hoops, I do believe it will be a splendid day for it!"

And, of course, they could have just used something that compiled to machine code. Yeah, they'd have to standardize hardware, but 99% of Android phones probably have a fucking ARM in them.

Especially considering that most cross-platform apps and high-performance ones (like Chrome) use Android NDK anyways. If they did it from the start they'd also be programming in the One True Language too!

Takes shit-long to render pages. This is even if I'm home, with a great wifi signal. My net connection is 30/5 and I can bring up the page in desktop Chrome in about 1s. On Android? Takes like 30s.

Switching tabs causes pages to reload. What. The. Fuck. I don't even understand why this happens, or who decided it should work like this, and it doesn't always do it. But plenty of times I'll switch to another tab I was reading 10 minutes before, only to have Chrome decide that it needed to reload the page. And this isn't a page that reloads in normal browser, so I don't know, Chrome just likes re-loading pages. And then since it takes 30s to render the fucking thing, I'm just left standing there with my dick in my hand.

Sometimes is just like "Fuck you, I crash now". Of course, maybe I should know better than expecting a browser to be able to handle 3 simultaneous tabs.

Stupid fucking sites like Wikipedia have Javascript that fires after the page is loaded, but since it takes for-fucking-ever in Chrome it fucks up shit. And this is the goddamn mobile Wikipedia site. But I'll start typing my search and after 3 seconds the Wikipedia onload Javascript will fire, which tells the browser to move the cursor to the search box and clear the input, meaning it just chops off the first few characters and is like "Ha ha, fuck you, now I'm gonna search for 'ttle of gettysburg', asshole!"

Other sites do similar shit, where they cause the focus to jump to the top of the fucking page or something retarded. But since mobile Chrome is so ass-slow, I'm already a paragraph into the thing I was reading when the browser finally gets around to executing the "onload" JS and moving me all the way back to the top. FUCK.

High-performance doesn't mean it works right, it means it would work worse if it was written in Java. Your phone may also be causing problems, is it a real Google device (has Nexus in there somewhere), or something that somebody like HTC or Samsung made on the cheap and threw a hack of Android on because it cost them literally nothing to license it?

Basically though I was just trying to give an example of something written against the NDK for reasons other then "C++ is the only language that runs on the iPhone and Android".

Windows can be installed on shitty hardware. Therefore, Windows is a piece of shit.

How are you so fucking stupid? HOW??

Windows is a general-purpose OS. If you want to buy it, you can install it on whatever crap you want. Android is a locked-down OS for smartphones and tablets. Google could exert control over their OEMs, but they'd rather have half a billion shitty devices out there.

As for M$, I do wish they'd exert more control over their OEMs. It's baffling to me that they still let fuck-ups like Sony and HP install shitware all over the OS. But at the very least, even on the cheapest OEM computer you can buy, Win8 runs fine and, if you remove the god-awful pre-installed malware, it's ok. Android comes with a bunch of pre-installed shitware and you can't even uninstall it. And then the core, Google-provided applications still run like shit on every Android phone I've ever seen.

...something that somebody like HTC or Samsung made on the cheap and threw a hack of Android on because it cost them literally nothing to license it?

I still consider that Google's problem. If they want Android to be taken seriously, they shouldn't be allowing it on hardware that sucks.

Yeah, or at least made it closed source or a more restrictive open source license so that hardware companies can't fuck it up. Also every extant Motorola device is pre-Google takeover so it doesn't count as first party.

As for M$, I do wish they'd exert more control over their OEMs. It's baffling to me that they still let fuck-ups like Sony and HP install shitware all over the OS.

As a consumer, I agree with this. Unfortunately, from a business standpoint, there really isn't any way for Microsoft to "exert control" over OEMs. To the OEMs Microsoft is just another vendor that supplies just one of the many components that goes into a PC. If Microsoft tried to "exert control" the result would most likely be the OEMs (especially the big ones) telling them "we already paid you XX million dollars for Windows licenses, everything else is none of your business so kindly fuck off". Windows revenue is needed to prop up all their other divisions that make little or no money, so Microsoft has no leverage over the OEMs.